There should be a single rating for all newbies to the site and no erratic rating changes. That's the most fair way. But obviously not everyone thinks the same.. I would say everyone starts at 1000 and simply goes from there. Because then you end up with loads of upstartsnin the 1600 to 2000 section who like pushing engines.. most irritating for players like me who can hang with 2300+
Anyone else frustrated with people being 400 on blitz/bullet and then end up being 1200 on rapid
Sort:
As the system is now I mean
Most annoying are 500 rated players who claim "they can hang with +2300". You realize that you get a 800 rating after signing up?
Jun 20, 2022
0
#65
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
It could be argued the opposite, one would probably improve faster playing blitz, as is evident for the majority of people who learned how to play chess on this site. Its good for new players to play slow chess, so they don't feel as bad since it is easier, which is why most people have higher ratings in rapid compared to blitz.
It COULD be argued that chess skill and/or improvement is determined by mind-control rays from Venus. Just because someone endlessly repeats utter nonsense doesn't confer legitimacy on it.
Yes, it's easier to find good moves and play better with more time to think. Most players probably play better at longer time controls. But if all your opponents are playing better, then you won't be able to beat them any more often than you can at blitz, so you won't gain rating points.
The reason that some players are much better at slower time controls than they are at blitz is because their overall chess chess strength is undeveloped and the difference in time to think is more significant for them. Players who are bad players overall will lose to them more often at rapid or classical and players who are stronger overall will defeat them less often. Hence the ratings difference.
You can paint it however you want, but to put it simply, its because rapid is easier. Easier to play, easier competition. period...lol But playing classical for example, is not going to make someone better at chess faster then playing blitz once they learn the basics.
This goes for reading books as well. I'm tired of hearing people give such outdated traditional advice like read books to get better at chess. First of all just like playing slow chess, books are only going to help the basic beginner, or the every advanced expert. For the average player they are not going to make you stop making the obvious blunders. This is what Capablanca means when he said "Chess books can be used like glasses to assist sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight"
And I heard Gary Kasparov saying this recently about chess strength. He said only classical can determine a players true chess strength. I disagree, I think true chess strength is determined in speed chess, for the exact reasons you have already stated yourself.
You continue with reasoning that is mathematically impossible. EVERYONE can't have higher ratings in rapid because it's easier. Who are the players everybody is beating to get those rating points? Using your logic, no one is losing more rapid games, everyone is winning more.
The rest of your post bears no relation to the subject at hand, but I'm amused by the fact that someone who constantly quotes GMs to "prove" his points now decides that two of the greatest players in the history of chess don't know as much as him.
Jun 20, 2022
0
#66
CooloutAC wrote:
Because that reasoning is made by yourself in your own head lol. noone said everyone. I've said the majority of players. For all the reasons i've stated for all the reasons you ahve admitted yourself. IT is you who can't seem to contemplate the topic. Because what the OP didn't realize, is that what he thought was suspicious is actually perfectly normal and common for, again, the majority of players.
Whether it's everyone, nearly everyone or a majority that wins so much more often in rapid as you claim, because it's so much easier that they can play so much better, the math still doesn't work. Your idea seems to be that there is a group of higher-rated rapid players that suddenly can't play well any more, lose all their games to players with low blitz ratings, and then quit playing. How else can the majority of players achieve higher ratings?
Jun 20, 2022
0
#67
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Your idea seems to be that there is a group of higher-rated rapid players that suddenly can't play well any more, lose all their games to players with low blitz ratings, and then quit playing. How else can the majority of players achieve higher ratings?
Thats exactly right. And the math is there before your eyes. Just because you are on a fake profile and ignorantly post all over these forums spreading myths and lies and think noone notices, doesn't mean most of us don't look at peoples profiles and check their stats. That is part of the fun of playing a competitive sport.
Do you truly believe that ridiculous garbage or are you simply so befuddled that you don't know what you are saying? You are agreeing that there are a lot of players that inexplicably start losing all the time and never regain their winning form in order that the majority of low-rated players can gain a lot of rating points. That's the way the math works, bud.
Incidentally, I play three times a week, driving across town and spending three hours or so playing face-to-face. You have said that you often play slower games while laying on your couch eating. Not really such intense competition there.
CooloutAC skrev:
mpaetz wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Your idea seems to be that there is a group of higher-rated rapid players that suddenly can't play well any more, lose all their games to players with low blitz ratings, and then quit playing. How else can the majority of players achieve higher ratings?
Thats exactly right. And the math is there before your eyes. Just because you are on a fake profile and ignorantly post all over these forums spreading myths and lies and think noone notices, doesn't mean most of us don't look at peoples profiles and check their stats. That is part of the fun of playing a competitive sport.
Do you truly believe that ridiculous garbage or are you simply so befuddled that you don't know what you are saying? You are agreeing that there are a lot of players that inexplicably start losing all the time and never regain their winning form in order that the majority of low-rated players can gain a lot of rating points. That's the way the math works, bud.
Incidentally, I play three times a week, driving across town and spending three hours or so playing face-to-face. You have said that you often play slower games while laying on your couch eating. Not really such intense competition there.
Of course I do, did you truly ignore all the posters backing me up on this in this thread? The OP created this thread, because he prolly believed the nonsense he has heard for years by people like you.
Again, just because you ignorantly post all over the forums thinking noone is going to look at your profile and realize you're fake, doesn't mean most of us don't look at the profiles and stats of all our opponents. Because that is part of the fun of any sport. Comparing stats even if just to follow our own progress. Rarely do I see people with higher blitz then rapid ratings, and when I do, i assume they must be young and at the age where they can quickly develop the exercised skills needed while most of us older folk have a much harder time.
How old are you?
Omg this is great.... I've been following this thread just because of him and it's too entertaining. Really amusing... but seriously guys... It's not worth it... Just give up (or don't, I've actually came to enjoy all his babbling nonsense) ... I once too tried debating with him and it was exactly the same thing.. saying TL;DR when out of arguments, quoting Fischer at the peak of his madness but only when it was convenient for him and ignoring what countless others GMs and world champs have said, changing subjects when refuted... He simply disregards when people present facts, statistics, logic, reason, common sense, quotes of masters, and wants to complain about ignoring now.
Since we all like GM quotes here is one
And that's prolly why he avoids it... He never backs up his argument with anything other than empty hearsay.... His arguments are like "learning the rubik cube will make you better at puzzle rush. Period. Morphy said so before he lost his shoes."... He thinks blitz is something new that wasn't played 100 years ago. He's either one of the greatest trolls ever or a lost medical case. Neither logic nor coherent arguments can affect him.... He is immune to reasoning, allergic to thinking, against logic... fakes not reading whenever confronted with proof that his twisted beliefs are wrong, changes subjects when facts and statistics are thrown in his face just to fit his delusional narrative so that he can keep living in his own bubble. ... it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad...
Jun 21, 2022
0
#70
(from my point of view)
No to play blitz (3 or 5m) is training, learning or work so if I see a big or small elo in rapide or long whether it is rated against human or AI, it has no value to me.
What I'm trying to say it's you have to know what interests you in the game of chess. Because for example you can pass all your life reading chess books, doing tactical exercises etc. but in the end you never play with for example the pretext your are a noob or not a gosu who needs to learn, train, work.
Clearly no I'm not frustrated because goal is to have fun not feed my ego. Of course it's more rewarding to have a big rating than a small rating but the importance of the elo is above all to increase probability of falling on an opponent who is not too weak or too strong.
I reinstalled the Chessmaster program and I'll also do rating AI in blitz. Maybe I'll lose 400 elo points compared to my chess.com elo but I don't care in the end.
CooloutAC wrote:
My arguments are based on human nature and common sports sense. The same principles i promote apply to any sport. Chess is no different and you show yourself to be unsporting and uncompetitive lacking an understanding of these things. Which unfortunately is the stereotypical mindset in chess communities.
meh too long for me to bother reading... no point in doing so since im sure its just more of you ignoring what someone else wrote and vomiting all of those generalized nonsensical ad hominem flat earth void arguments disguised as fake common sense that you use to change the subject and avoid an actual debate so I am unfollowing now cuz i forgot to unfollow yesterday... whenever you decide to actually coherently respond to an argument and bring facts, logic or statistics feel free to tag me. peace out
yes fr bro
Jun 21, 2022
0
#73
I have a negative 200 - 300 difference because I play blitz and bullet for fun, later at night, and normal with a couple of soda pops lol 
CooloutAC wrote:
Jalex13 wrote:
All the fast improvers improve from rapid. Tons of the people addicted to blitz are stuck at the same rating range for years
wrong. Most people here have never played classical.
Lol what? your answer makes no sense he said nothing about classical... here's a quote about classical
CooloutAC: "But that doesn't mean playing slower games will make you better at classical which is the typical lie"
Yea don't play slow games to get better at classical lol
I could go on with impossible math and such but no spoilers just yet, the reason I'm quoting these is just a preview to market my upcoming book "Best Absurdities You Can Only Find on Chess.com Forums" that and much more to come SOON - available for pre-sale NOW - message me to order yours
Just finishing some legal technicalities first @CooloutAC do I have your permission to use some of your gibberish? Can I attribute them to you or would you prefer anonymity? Either way no worries I will cut you a % of the profit. In no time we'll be playing chess on a yacht
How is it wrongly quoted if I copied and pasted from your post, genius?
Also this might come as a shock to you but repeating the same thing over and over again like you keep doing without backing it up with anything substantial is not an argument and doesn't miraculously make it true, besides your most desperate efforts.
I just have one quick question, since too much simple information has proven hard for you to absorb, before I stop this pointless attempt at a debate because it's impossible to do so with a denialist, but just out of curiosity, please respond with honesty if you can, even though based on your history so far I doubt you will: Why do you always pretend not to read (when everyone knows that's bs) or dismiss and digress the topic to some unrelated foolishness about ego or whatever everytime a solid factual evidence that proves you wrong is presented to you as you have done plenty of times in this forum to many different people?
CooloutAC skrev:
Mermaum wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Jalex13 wrote:
All the fast improvers improve from rapid. Tons of the people addicted to blitz are stuck at the same rating range for years
wrong. Most people here have never played classical.
Lol what? your answer makes no sense he said nothing about classical... here's a quote about classical
CooloutAC: "But that doesn't mean playing slower games will make you better at classical which is the typical lie"
Yea don't play slow games to get better at classical lol
I could go on with impossible math and such but no spoilers just yet, the reason I'm quoting these is just a preview to market my upcoming book "Best Absurdities You Can Only Find on Chess.com Forums" that and much more to come SOON - available for pre-sale NOW - message me to order yours
Just finishing some legal technicalities first @CooloutAC do I have your permission to use some of your gibberish? Can I attribute them to you or would you prefer anonymity? Either way no worries I will cut you a % of the profit. In no time we'll be playing chess on a yacht
Change that to slower games won't make you better at blitz. Contrary to the traditional myth. I've corrected that for you and I didn't read any further since your whole premise regarding what I said was wrong and wrongly quoted.
Makes no sense. Being better at chess will oufcourse make you better at Blitz.
You never see high rated players complaining, it's always the beginners.
Why is the answer “kick rocks”? The players rating in other forms of games play should be considered somewhat. If you don’t see a possible benefit in this I would say you don’t really care about the community as a whole or growing it.
Jun 22, 2022
0
#80
@CooloutAC stop making up stuff and projecting it to others. Nearly everything you say about me is false.
When someone declares what I think and it is not what I think, I gotta wonder where they get their ideas. Pretty sure that I know, but the bots won’t let me use the normal term for that orifice.
There’s plenty of evidence that there are more (higher percentage) cheaters at higher ratings. Also at slower time controls.
It could be argued the opposite, one would probably improve faster playing blitz, as is evident for the majority of people who learned how to play chess on this site. Its good for new players to play slow chess, so they don't feel as bad since it is easier, which is why most people have higher ratings in rapid compared to blitz.
It COULD be argued that chess skill and/or improvement is determined by mind-control rays from Venus. Just because someone endlessly repeats utter nonsense doesn't confer legitimacy on it.
Yes, it's easier to find good moves and play better with more time to think. Most players probably play better at longer time controls. But if all your opponents are playing better, then you won't be able to beat them any more often than you can at blitz, so you won't gain rating points.
The reason that some players are much better at slower time controls than they are at blitz is because their overall chess chess strength is undeveloped and the difference in time to think is more significant for them. Players who are bad players overall will lose to them more often at rapid or classical and players who are stronger overall will defeat them less often. Hence the ratings difference.
Try drawing and adding some pictures, maybe then he'll understand